Posted on 12/22/2009 4:14:00 AM PST by marktwain
I recently blogged about an interesting op-ed in which Ken Klukowski and Ken Blackwell of the American Civil Rights Union argue that the Supreme Court need not overturn The Slaughter-House Cases while “incorporating” the right to bear arms against the states. (Josh Blackman fisked the article in more depth here.) This piece was essentially a distillation of the ACRU’s amicus brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which ultimately argues, like Cato’s brief, that Chicago’s gun ban is unconstitutional.
It has come to my attention, however, that I mischaracterized one aspect of the Kens’ op-ed (sorry about that): while they are indeed against overturning Slaughter-House, the authors still seek to apply the Second Amendment right through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (like Cato and most libertarians), rather than through the Due Process Clause (like many conservatives and gun rights proponents). This is the ACRU’s main argument, and it is based largely on Ken Klukowski’s recent law review article – indeed, the brief’s body cites Klukowski article some 20 times, often for propositions that find no further support in case law or academic literature. (Josh has also provided a short critique of the ACRU brief/Klukowski article, so I won’t do that here.)
In any event, this clarification gives me an opportunity to name and outline the five possible ways a justice could come down in the McDonald case:
(Excerpt) Read more at cato-at-liberty.org ...
In my book the militia is composed of individuals that may be called upon at any time, and for whatever reason to defend the state. Therefore the individual must be allowed keep and bear arms for this eventuality. The second amendment is moot without this ability.
What, exactly, is difficult to understand in the phrase, ‘Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights’?
Questions, check the Bill of Rights.
It’s not rocket science.
Its not only in 'your book', it's the Law. When Congress was establishing the states National Guard system, it was made clear in the law that the NG was NOT to be a replacement for 'the Militia'.(1)
IIRC the 'Militia' is every able bodied man between 18 and 45
(1) Google or BING 'Militia Act' (or Militia Law)
No offense intended nor implied :-)
...all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age...
Aw, c'mon. Give this old guy a break.
My memory was only slightly off - one year each way. And I did lead with 'IIRC'
;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.